The adolescent enemy combatants at Gitmo

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As for the concept that freedom is better than prison, no matter what conditions the person's freedom brings...our own justice system sees exceptions to this theory every day. I have a friend that works for the Police Department in Charlotte, NC and she has confirmed that they do have a certain group of people that are habitual offenders solely for the purpose of being caught and put in jail.

There is a world of difference between **choosing** to break the law in order to gain food and picking up a gun to defend your country from invasion. In the former, you exercise choice, in the latter you are a prisoner of circumstance.

[/QUOTE]First of all, Skunk, the U.S. didn't "invade" Afghanistan. That indicates an intent to go in, occupy, and take over the country. It was the Russians that tried that, not us. What the U.S. DID do was go over specifically to fight the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces....they did not target the entire general population of Afghanistan. Therefore, these teens DID have a choice.....and they chose to take up arms against the U.S. forces. There are plenty of other teens in Afghanistan who did not take up arms against the U.S. - because America was not waging war against the Afghanistan population.

There have been admonishments in this thread about not misusing the term "terrorist"...and I have agreed those admonishments are correct. By the same term, let's not misuse the term "invasion" either. That implies that America wanted to go in and take over the country and that they were fighting against the entirety of the Afghanistan population....and that simply is not what happened.

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Also, the threat of imprisonment under Communist Russia was just a bit more frightening than at Gitmo. Since the gov't could grab anyone at anytime for any reason and kill them without any repurcussions. I realize the detainees at Guantanamo have also been held without any reason being given - and I oppose that. HOWEVER, NONE of the detainees have been subjected to physical torture or the threat of immediate execution for failure to cooperate. They also were not "grabbed for no reason" in the first place. They were CAPTURED during military combat and have received the treatment owed them by that status.

But they **ARE** being subjected to torture:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm
and it is every bit as barbaric as anything that the old communist state could come up with - unless of course, being tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at you counts as dignified and humane treatment
[/QUOTE]The accounts of being tied to posts and shot with rubber bullets was attributed to one of the released prisoners in the article. Just a few sentences later, that same article said that Australian officials who had visited the prisoners said they were being treated humanely and had access to the Red Cross.

So I guess it's a matter of who do you believe?

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: Thought about that for a second Davros. First off, [img]smile.gif[/img] we differ on wether we agree that the US Constitutional rights apply to captured terrorists/combatants/whatever

Well if you are looking to play the same semantics game as GDubbya then I think you lose your rights to use that first term without conveying hypocrisy. If you want to call some of them terrorists (and hey, I have no doubt that some are) then show proof against them, stand them up in a court of law, condemn them as such, and punish them. I have no problem at all with that happening. If you don't have anything on them and want to call them enemy combatants to prevent them facing a court of law then I think you forfiet the right to make pronounced judgements like "terrorist".

It is odd to me that it is the "vengeful right" side of politics that tends to favour the "eye for an eye" / capital punishment approach that is shrinking away from condemning the guilty to just punishment. Maybe it is the thought of seeing one guilty man walk free among the innocent that can't be stomached. Makes a ceft stick for your diplomatic corp to work with when next they want to argue for one of their nationals stuck in some tiny country jail somewhere that Americans believe in the presumption of innocence and that their guy deserves a fairer go. These sort of things tend to come back and haunt one now and then.

I reiterate again - I am all for seeing the guilty punished. It just seems to me that when you go fishing with a net to catch salmon it is invariable that you collect a few tuna and bream that weren't really the point of the whole exercise. Sooner or later that legal process of sorting in the courts needs to get underway.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: That's a completely different argument. cerek claims that they are better off in Guantanomo Bay than if they were in Afghanistan. Without freedom they can't be. BTW- " "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"" We don't know what crimes they committed (Issa secret! Shhhhhh!)

Actually, Donut, I've claimed that their living conditions are better (a regular house as opposed to the shelter, shack, or cave that would be their living quarters in Afghanistan) and I've claimed their daily routine is better, since I doubt volleyball, soccer, and other recreational activities were part of their daily routine back home.

So I suppose you could try to say that I am claiming they are better off as prisoners...but the actual point I was trying to make is that their actual living conditions and daily routine are better at Guantanamo than it was in Afghanistan. I understand the point you are making...that even the best of conditions are not an acceptable substitute for personal freedom. And I agree with you on a personal basis...but this thread was specifically about the teens being kept in Gitmo and all I've been trying to say is that perhaps - just perhaps - they may not feel the same way.

Thirteen to fifteen is a very impressionable age. It is also very young to be dedicating your life to a cause, such as the Taliban or A.Q. I'm sure they were more than willing to fight for the cause while in Afghanistan, because that was what their role models there were doing. All I'm suggesting is that - now that they have seen an alternative to that lifestyle - I can't say for certain they would be as willing to return to their former lifestyle. Of course, I may be wrong about that and they may want nothing more than to return to Afghanistan and the life they knew before. But since they are at such an impressionable stage of their life - and they have now seen an alternative to that lifestyle - they may not be as anxious to return to it.

OH...and as for the different rhetorical phrases John D. Harris provided...it is not a separate argument. Also - their "crime" is NOT a secret....they took up arms against U.S. soldiers in battle (hence the term, "enemy combatants" ). They went in to battle against U.S. soldiers and were captured. Even if you ignore the phrases that deal specifically with crime, there are still several others that do apply to their situation.

Most notable would be "You reap what you sow" and "For every action, there is a reaction". But the perhaps the best phrase that could be used is "All actions have consequences, and you must take the responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences they bring". When you go into battle, there is always the chance you will be killed, wounded, or captured. If you choose to fight anyway, then you accept these possible consequences for your actions.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: First of all, Skunk, the U.S. didn't "invade" Afghanistan. That indicates an intent to go in, occupy, and take over the country. It was the Russians that tried that, not us. What the U.S. DID do was go over specifically to fight the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces....they did not target the entire general population of Afghanistan. Therefore, these teens DID have a choice.....and they chose to take up arms against the U.S. forces. There are plenty of other teens in Afghanistan who did not take up arms against the U.S. - because America was not waging war against the Afghanistan population.

The primary purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was 'regime change'; the removal of an unfriendly government and replacing it with one that was sympathetic to US interests.

This was in NO WAY different to the Russian invasion and occupation that came before it. They too wanted an end to extremists in power and wanted compliant 'moderates' to be installed. To say otherwise is naive.

Equally naive is to suggest that bombing government installations and police stations should not be taken as waging war against the populace. If Chinese planes bombed Captital Hill, would all Americans say:
Gee, I'm not worried - they're not attacking Americans, just our government????

When your country declares war (or war is declared upon it), you as an individual do not have any say in the matter. There were many soldiers in WWI, WWII, The Korean war, Vietnam etc., who were given a choice of fighting or incarceration and social exclusion.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The accounts of being tied to posts and shot with rubber bullets was attributed to one of the released prisoners in the article. Just a few sentences later, that same article said that Australian officials who had visited the prisoners said they were being treated humanely and had access to the Red Cross. So I guess it's a matter of who do you believe?

The claims are from prisoners of other nationalities, rather than from those from the allied countries. Red Cross visits have been allowed to those POW's, but have not been granted to all prisoners and permission has been erratic at best.

Who do I believe, the kidnapper or the victim? Personally, I give a little more credence to the victim's tales of torture than the kidnapper's denials.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Thirteen to fifteen is a very impressionable age. It is also very young to be dedicating your life to a cause, such as the Taliban or A.Q. I'm sure they were more than willing to fight for the cause while in Afghanistan, because that was what their role models there were doing.

Thirteen to fifteen is not too young to be dedicating your life to the love of your country, it's religion and culture - and you are never too young to defend yourself from the harm that others would cause to you and your own kind.

[pritchke]

I don't recall Russia having an attack on the scale of 9/11 before they invaded Afghanistan. As for the Taliban the moral of the story is chose your friends wisely. They supported the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. If you wish to harbor such people and not do anything about it you should prepare for the same thing in return. Something along the lines of aiding and abetting.

[ 01-21-2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by pritchke: I don't recall Russia having an attack on the scale of 9/11 before they invaded Afghanistan. As for the Taliban the moral of the story is chose your friends wisely. They supported the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. If you wish to harbor such people and not do anything about it you should prepare for the same thing in return. Something along the lines of aiding and abetting.

I think the discussion is about what constitutes an "invasion" rather than the justification for it.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by pritchke: I don't recall Russia having an attack on the scale of 9/11 before they invaded Afghanistan. As for the Taliban the moral of the story is chose your friends wisely. They supported the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. If you wish to harbor such people and not do anything about it you should prepare for the same thing in return. Something along the lines of aiding and abetting.

I think the discussion is about what constitutes an "invasion" rather than the justification for it. [/QUOTE]I would say that at the time it was an invasion as they were not wanted there by that government, same as Saddam's invasion in GW1, no need to sugar coat it. I would also say the invasion is over as the troops are now there with the blessing of the current government.

On a side not the current government has pardoned some Taliban members that they do not consider dangerous.

[ 01-21-2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: The primary purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was 'regime change'; the removal of an unfriendly government and replacing it with one that was sympathetic to US interests. This was in NO WAY different to the Russian invasion and occupation that came before it. They too wanted an end to extremists in power and wanted compliant 'moderates' to be installed. To say otherwise is naive. Equally naive is to suggest that bombing government installations and police stations should not be taken as waging war against the populace. If Chinese planes bombed Captital Hill, would all Americans say: Gee, I'm not worried - they're not attacking Americans, just our government???? When your country declares war (or war is declared upon it), you as an individual do not have any say in the matter. There were many soldiers in WWI, WWII, The Korean war, Vietnam etc., who were given a choice of fighting or incarceration and social exclusion.

Russia didn't just want "moderates" in the gov't. They wanted to occupy and take over the country and add it to their own territory. That is not the same goal the U.S. forces had.

Originally posted by Skunk: The claims are from prisoners of other nationalities, rather than from those from the allied countries. Red Cross visits have been allowed to those POW's, but have not been granted to all prisoners and permission has been erratic at best. Who do I believe, the kidnapper or the victim? Personally, I give a little more credence to the victim's tales of torture than the kidnapper's denials.

Pardon me, but they were captured, not "kidnapped". Since I was chastised for improperly using the term "terrorist" earlier in this thread, then let us please continue to use the appropriate terms for both sides.

You give more credence to the tale's of torture from prisoners of nationalities un-friendly to the U.S. That is your choice. I tend to keep in mind that they just might have an ulterior motive in trying to portray their captors as sadistic torturers. Red Cross visits have been sporadic...but the military didn't have to let them visit at all, if they didn't want to. Media reporters have been given tours of Gitmo at various times for them to view the conditions of the prisoners and their accomodations. Certainly, the U.S. is going to put on their "best face" for such a tour, but again, if they were torturing the prisoners on a routine basis, then they wouldn't have to allow ANY media access at all. After all, there is always the chance that a cameraman might accidentally catch an act of torture on tape or a reporter might ask some serious questions about a prisoners inexplicable wounds.

It is also not uncommon for prisoners in our jail system to routinely claim they were beaten or tortured by the police during thier captivity. Sometimes the claims are true and sometimes the prisoner is just trying to shift the blame to the police officers and make them look bad.

As I said before, you are free to believe whichever side you care to.

Originally posted by Skunk: Thirteen to fifteen is not too young to be dedicating your life to the love of your country, it's religion and culture - and you are never too young to defend yourself from the harm that others would cause to you and your own kind.

Then 13-15 is also not too young to accept the consequences of your actions. You take up arms against enemy soldiers, you run the risk of being killed, wounded, or captured by those soldiers.

Since they are obviously old enough - in your opinion - to take up arms to defend themselves from harm, they are also old enough to accept the imprisonment at the hands of the enemy soldiers that took them prisoner rather than killing them for their actions. The sword cuts both ways.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Pardon me, but they were captured, not "kidnapped". Since I was chastised for improperly using the term "terrorist" earlier in this thread, then let us please continue to use the appropriate terms for both sides.

You should know me enough by now to know that I choose my words carefully.
The term 'Kidnap' merely means to:

"Unlawfully seize and detain usually with (but not neccessarily) with the purpose of obtaining a ransom"

The seizure of enemy combatents in war is of course a lawful act. To refuse them POW status and the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention is unlawful as the US is a signatory to the Convention.

Even if US claims that they are not POW's is held to be true, the continuing detention (and the nature of the detention) of those people at GM bay is still unlawful as it is in direct contravention of the Declaration of Human Rights - an agreement/treaty that the US signed more than 50 years ago.

Kidnap is therefore an appropriate term for those being held against their will, without charge or access to judicial review.

[Chewbacca]

The children have been released! I wonder if "resettled" means they are being reunited with family (if they have any) or put into orphanges/foster homes?

Link
***************
U.S. Defense officials say three children held at the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have been released and returned to their home country.
The three children, aged 13 to 15, were seized in Afghanistan, two in raids on Taleban camps and the third while allegedly trying to obtain weapons to fight American forces.

Defense officials considered them enemy combatants who, despite their youth, had engaged in armed conflict or provided support to those fighting U.S. troops.

But the U.S. decision to imprison the juveniles with more than 600 other suspected al-Qaida and Taleban terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay stirred concern among international human rights groups when it was revealed last year.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it did not consider Guantanamo to be an appropriate place to detain juveniles. Human Rights Watch called their detention a grave risk to their well-being.

U.S. officials say it was not easy to determine accurately the youths' ages and eventually required medical tests, including bone-density scans.

They say once authorities determined the three were children, they were separated from the other terrorist suspects and moved into their own housing. A Pentagon statement Thursday said they were provided an opportunity to learn math as well as reading and writing. They also received daily physical exercise.

The three are being resettled with the assistance of private relief groups. But the Pentagon says it is concerned Taleban or al-Qaida sympathizers may threaten their safety. That is why defense officials have not announced their names or issued any details on their release.

The release of the three children follows a visit to Washington earlier this month by Jakob Kellenberger, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who met officials to discuss Guantanamo detainee issues.

Humanitarian groups, including the Red Cross, have also called for concessions for an undetermined number of other youths aged 16 and 17 held at Guantanamo who they say should be considered juveniles as well.

So far, 87 detainees have been released from Guantanamo. In addition four other detainees have been transferred to Saudi Arabia for continued detention there.